Thursday, May 23, 2013

Woolwich slaughter: sorry, MCB, but this *is* a school of Islam

The beheading of a British soldier in his own country has long been threatened by some of our home-grown Islamists, but such a barbaric act occurring on the streets of London has been quite literally incredible, unimaginable, inconceivable. Yes, there are gruesome 'religious' decapitations all over YouTube, but that sort of bloody horror is peculiar to the shady fiefdoms of Mogadishu, Chechnya or the Sudan. It just doesn't happen in England. Not to a 20-year-old young man wearing a 'Help for Heroes' charity T-shirt, walking peacefully in the warm London sunlight of the merry month of May.

There appears to be some unfortunate attempt at media censorship going on, and this will help no-one: indeed, it is more likely to increase suspicion over motives and inflame anger. One of the killers, speaking in a recognisable saarf-Laandan accent, was recorded on video. He said:

"We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."

The Muslim Council of Britain rushed out a swift statement, washing its hands of the murder, repudiating utterly any link with Islam: "A barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly," they said.

The problem, of course, is that it manifestly does have a link with Islam. It may have nothing to do with the MCB understanding of the religion in modern Britain, and doubtless they sincerely believe that 'No cause justifies this murder' and that the 'Vast majority of British Muslims acknowledge armed forces for the work they do world'. But to say it has no basis in Islam is to deny Islamic history, ignore the brutality of the warrior Mohammed, and brush off those inconvenient jihadi-Islamic movements in the modern era who seek to emulate their prophet's example.

The MCB is also rather selective with its condemnations and justifications. Have they repudiated Palestinian terrorism? Or does that particular cause justify the slaughter of the Fogel family? Have they said anything unequivocal to condemn the Taliban? Have they condemned their co-religionists who rally in the streets of London demanding the overthrow of the Government and Monarchy and the establishment of a Caliphate?

The truth is that those who hacked away at a British soldier yesterday are acting in accordance with a theologically determined logic which can certainly be situated within a sharia view of Islamic culture and understood on the basis of Islamic religious precepts. The killer calmly and rationally quoted Islamic sacred texts: 'We must fight them as they fight us' echoes the Qur'an:

"..fight (qātilū - literally means kill) in the cause of Allah those who fight you... And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for fitnah (oppression, persecution) is worse than slaughter;... if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith'" (Sura 2:190-9).

"..fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together" (Sura 9:36).

"Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is able to give them victory" (Sura 22:39).

The reference 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' is the Mosaic Pentateuch reiterated in the Qur'an:

"And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation" (Sura 5:54).

These murderers invoke ancient religious rulings and refute any notion of abrogation. As Osama Bin Laden put it: "It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge."

No moderate or reasonable Muslim would invoke the literal interpretation of such texts today. But it is simply not true to say that this interpretation of Jihad has no basis in Islam. The Woolwich slaughter is a declared reprisal attack which comes as a direct consequence of the British military presence in Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan. It is, to the jihadi mind, a rational act of holy war, of the sort advocated today by the die-hard Salafist-Wahhabi movement.

That is not to say that the Woolwich killers are members of this school or adherents of its teachings. This is simply to refute the crass and simplistic assertion by the MCB that this slaughter 'has no basis in Islam'. In fact, it bears all the hallmarks of the sort of ritualistic killing not infrequently featured in the Qur'an and Ahadith. This is not, of course, to excuse or justify the action, but we get nowhere very quickly at all if the official body which purports to represent all British Muslims denies the religio-political or theo-cultural inspiration of the slaughter.

The MCB needs to acknowledge that Sunni Islam contains the malignant ideological strand of Salifism. They must own it, condemn it, and seek to reform it. It is that very same militia devil that has overrun Timbuktu and Mali, and is crushing everything that opposes it. The Salafi-Wahhabi movement is now a global phenomenon: it has spread way beyond it primitive desert tribalism and burst forth into our civilisation. It not an Islamic denomination of peaceful shrines, sacred texts and respect for aesthetic heterogeneity: it is one of death and destruction in the name of Allah, following the zeal of Mohammed. We either bury our heads in the sand, or eradicate it utterly from our presence. If we choose to appease Saudi-Arabian puritanism, it will destroy us, just as it is wiping out the mystical Sufi strain of Islam wherever it is to be found.

Political ignorance and judicial impotence against the irruption of virulent quranic rhetoric is no longer acceptable. All authentic Muslims are in submission to Allah: all are jihadists, or holy warriors, for truth. The vast majority, as the MCB point out, pursue the jihad of peace. Others look to the primitive quranic era, and seek to destroy our idolatrous Christian deviancy. The Muslim Council of Britain needs to respond with something rather more potent than a lame bit of text.

You make the point very well that violence is intrinsic to Islam because that is what Mohammed did and preached. When are Muslims going to wake up to what they are following and reject the religion of death? Like Christians they believe that on the day of judgement they will be judged by Jesus not Mohammed. If they continue to follow Mohammed their immortal souls are in great danger of everlasting punishment.

Interesting your comment about "If we choose to appease Saudi-Arabian puritanism, it will destroy us", because President Obama has dropped ALL visa restrictions on Saudi Arabians entering American and people say the man's not a muslim ?

Well he did bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia and he complained to the Burmese about the treatment of Muslims but no word to Morsi about the slaughter of Christians in Egypt or any other Islamic dictatorship. He installs Muslim Brotherhood people in senior position in his administration and tells the CIA to purge all it training material of references to Islamic terrorists or jihad. He is decidedly anti-Christian and Anti-Jewish. Let's face it Islam has declared war on us, Obama is in the plan and we had better wake up.

Forget the MCB. It hasn't the power to reform anything whether it owns it or not. People who would kill in such a manner won't care what the MCB says. If you want to exact meaningful vicarious retribution for this murder and provide protection to the next British soldier walking along the street in his own country, then subject the perpetrators to death in the presence of excruciating pain over an extended period of time. Make the die hard. Replace those video images of haughty defiance with video images of horrific suffering. That will do more good than getting the MCB to issue condemnations. It will generate fear and respect. It will redress the balance in the public mind.

These murderers do not fear the state. They expect to be treated in a certain way. They expect an easy death or a humane captivity. What they would fear is deportation for punishment to a country with a penal system where they could expect neither. Why? Because they would fear the imminent prospect of intense suffering. So make them fear. You have the suspects in custody. Convict them. Condemn them. Hang them from the wrists with manacles and let them die of dehydration. Make them die hard. Then dispose of the bodies without public notice. Those acts would do more good than all the statements that the MCB could ever issue.

Limiting punishment to humane forms is a luxury of wealth and power and civilization. When barbarians grow within your midst, you have to treat them like barbarians. Be sure of one thing. A pusillanimous response will only encourage more of this. Weakness begets contempt. Putting these perpetrators into a cell with a TV set and a bed and sufficient food is nothing but weak.

Amidst all the nastiness of yesterdays event the british spirit of humour comes blazing through?!!!! They most definitely will not defeat us or lay low our spirit whilst we can still find the 'energy' to extract the urine out of all that is happening around us.

'We either bury our heads in the sand, or eradicate it utterly from our presence.'

Precisely, Your Grace. But the prospects of the political elite leading the British people out of this wilderness are negligible. As it stands, and as is the case with so many pressing issues, the political elite are denying that there is a problem. Of course, this is a logical position for them to take, after all it was the political elite who blythely created this vibrant multicultural society. Having arrived at the final destination of the multicultural and multiracial experiment, the elite cannot admit that they are terribly and horribly wrong. That long streak of misery David Cameron least of all. As Phillip Hammond said of SSM, there is deep anger in England. One looks forward to his description of the mood post-Woolwich.

The Muslim Council of Britain needs to respond with something rather more potent than a lame bit of text.

And Cameron needs to respond with more potency than this lame statement:

“The terrorists will never win because they can never beat the values that we hold dear.”

Values must be defended by iron resolve. But the "values" of our political class are those of the spinning moral compass and appeasement. They are no match for any school of ruthless Jihadism. I despair of the utter nonsense he spouts.

"He (Anjem Choudary) said: "What he did was unusual and it's not the kind of view that I propagate and I do not condone the use of violence, but those views are out there. Some members of the Muslim community struggle to express themselves and he is making his voice heard in blood.

Choudary suggested that it was possible the attack was motivated by British government foreign policy in the Muslim world, and that this may not have been an isolated incident."

This barbaric act is just "unusual" and we may expect more of the same as some form of self expression.

"After pleading with them to hand her the weapons, one told her: 'We want to start a war in London tonight'.

She replied: 'Right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose'. (Her reply to him means this specific event and the people around the mad man would fight for him to lose)

Mr Cameron said: ‘Confronting extremism is a job for us all (Muslims need not join in this confrontation per their form since arriving here?). And the fact that our communities (Muslims need not join in this confrontation per their form since arriving here but merely express meaningless platitudes?) will unite in doing this was vividly demonstrated by the brave cub pack leader - Ingrid Loyau-Kennett.

'When told by the attacker that he wanted to start a war in London she replied “You’re going to lose. It’s only you versus many.” She spoke for us all.’ Spin free meaning ...If its a war you want you will be defeated by the majority of us...not..All the communities are united AND WE WILL STAND FIRM AGAINST YOU AND NOT BE PROVOKED INTO ACTION.

Reading the Quran is an interesting and enlightening exercise. Strictly Islamic theologians say that it can only be understood in its original language, Arabic, but most of us obviously need to use a translation. It is not in chronological order which takes a while to get used to and it is not an easy read, but it would be good if more in the west made the effort to read this book. To me there are within the Quran, as with the NT, reflections of the OT.

"To me there are within the Quran, as with the NT, reflections of the OT. " What on earth does that mean...The OT and NT were largely written by Jews or Christian Jews..The Koran is the gibberish ramblings of a blood thirsty madman trying to establish his own religion to place alongside Judaism and Christianity in the region..It's history is well understood and is called plagiarism but of the most illiterate standard..

The Koran does not have a single verse encouraging love towards those outside of Islam. But there are 493 passages that either endorse violence or talk about the hatred of Allah for the infidels, meaning all non-Muslims. It is a book concerned with how Muslims are to think and act towards those outside of Islam; that is, either kill them or force them to live as second-class citizens and pay taxes (Jizya). More than half the contents of the Koran are texts despising or inciting opposition against non-Muslims. This is what turns Islam into a religion of hate and violence, for which history carries much evidence.Muslims cannot criticise Islam; those who do, risk a painful death. Non-Muslims criticizing Islam are branded “Islamophobes”, “racists” or “right-wing extremists”; but criticizing Islam does not constitute a phobia, but rather a very much justified activity. Islam is a totalitarian theological and political ideology, according to which everything is founded on the writings in the Koran, Surrah and the Hadiths and legitimised through the Shariah. It is the implicit duty placed on all Muslims to support the fight to regain control of the world on behalf of Allah.It is dangerous to ignore the fact that Islam has been in historic opposition to all other cultures since its conception. It should have no place in Western culture unless the West is prepared in the long term to accept its ascendency and eventual dominance

The Koran IS the foundation and justification for all Islamic violence - it should be BANNED throughout the West.

Extra sensory etc.I do not claim to be a Islamic scholar let alone an expert, being a committed Christian, but I think that you will find that Muslims have reverence for the OT prophets, as well as Jesus, as a Holy Man, but not God. They see Mohammed as the final and last truth teller in a long line of prophets. Both earlier Christianity and Islam have roots into the OT, and with Judaism , constitute The Abrahamic Faiths. What is your problem with that historical position ?

As far as they are concerned it is the actual word of Allah relayed through Gabriel to Mohammad and then dictated to his scribes. As an Infidel you would not even be allowed to pick it up. It is the very essence of the religion - if you think of it as just a book you should think again. You seem to show very little understanding of the enemy amongst us.

"but I think that you will find that Muslims have reverence for the OT prophets, as well as Jesus, as a Holy Man, but not God. "

They have none but their own interpretation as you should know that The OT and NT as we know it is declared corrupted and can only be viewed through koranic eyes and their text only of what has happened historically or was stated by supposed OT prophets or even Our Saviour Jesus Christ himself? Understand?.

"Both earlier Christianity and Islam have roots into the OT, and with Judaism , constitute The Abrahamic Faiths." Islam has no roots in Abrahamic faith as you must prove that muslims are descendant from Ishmael which is impossible? Do read OT prior to Abraham's appearance and see lots of arabic, non arabic types etc living in the region..Are they therefore all descendants of Ishmael who have lived in the region, Jews prove their descent from Abraham, Issac and Jacob but muslims cannot, only by unsubstantiated claims. Also the religion of the region involved many competing deities and the tribe of Mohammed worshipped the moon god Allah prior to Mohammed 'creating' this new deity. Allahu Akbar means Allah is Greater...'compared to who' should be the question you are asking...Understand. You have given them a standing that they do not deserve by birth line or is truth irrelevant?

"What is your problem with that historical position ?" IT IS NOT HISTORICAL...Understand?

@ David Hussell (14:44)—They see Mohammed as the final and last truth teller in a long line of prophets

Mohammed had an adopted son, Zayd, who was married to Zaynab bint Jahsh. Mohammed lusted after her but could not marry her because the prevailing custom forbade marriage of a father to the ex-wife of a son, even when the son was adopted. It was Mohammed’s lucky day, however, because Allah happened to send down a revelation that cleared the way for Mohammed to have his wicked way with Zaynab:

[33:37] And when Zayd divorced his wife, We gave her to you in marriage, so that it should become legitimate for true believers to wed the wives of their adopted sons if they divorced them.

The Qur’an has other accounts of Mohammed capitalizing on the opportunities presented by prophethood. He wasn’t a truth teller, he was a fraud.

Extra Sensory...Well quite clearly they would rely upon their own interpretation and not the Jewish or Christian ones....what else would one expect?I give them no "standing", in Christian terms that is, but find it very helpful to understand where they are coming from. One of our problems is that overall within our society there is almost zero understanding of all religions, including our own, Christianity, so people are in no position whatsoever to get to grips with Islam and its various schools.

The Woolwich Jihadists were just doing what the Quran told them, namely, to deputize themselves as Sharia judges and defend Sharia, the rule of Allah, like Judge Dredd starring Sylvester Stallone. Westerners still can't understand that Islam is about Allah deputizing Sharia cops and Sharia judges and telling them to recruit a Sharia army and rule the world. That's why mass Muslim immigration is bringing these horrors, and will continue until it's stopped and reversed, quarantining the Muslim World as had been done for centuries before our current crop of political rulers opened the gates.

You will remember that Bishop NazirAli resigned in March 2009 over this very issue and as a Christian from Pakistan he understands the dangers of Islam better than almost anyone else in official circles I would guess.

"Bishop NazirAli has spoken out strongly against what he sees as the increasing secularisation of society and in particular against the rise of Islam in Britain", from the Telegraph of March 28th, 2009.

"Triple Jeopardy for the West: Aggressive Secularism, Radical Islamism and Multiculturalism" by Michael Nazir-Ali (published 13 Sep 2012) was the subject of an address to the Conservative Party Conference last October, which I attended.

Cameron should read His Grace's article before he goes uttering silly statements like “There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act”. Islam is all about violence and death. How long before they start killing members of the general public because they are the non believers?

If MI5 knew these two how many others do they know of and why are they still allowed to live here? Why can't we deport the threats to a muslim country after having first taken finger prints and DNA so that if they come back there would be a match at the Customs data base and we could fling them out again.

Well said Carl @12:52 23rd May 13 That is the only thing they will understand treating like with like for these cases.

Why should the MCB be any less flabby and intellectually dishonest than the wider culture in which they function? They wouldn't get into the loop if they didn't help bolster the political elite's policy of denial.

They collude with the government in peddling the fiction that, if there is a problem, it's marginal, with a small number of "extremists on both sides".

This is what Damian Thompson wrote back in 2009 about the resignation of Bishop NazirAli, particularly note the final comment about th Muslim Council of Britain.

I used to disapprove of Bishop Nazir-Ali on various grounds. Never have I been more wrong. He is the only incumbent bishop who not only understands the true incompatibility of Sharia law with our ancient common law, but also follows in great detail the incremental changes to the public sector in order to accommodate Islamic religious demands.Last year, he briefed me on the issue of Sharia-compliant financial products. I could have been listening to an investment banker, so intricate was his analysis of this fast-growing sector. It's no coincidence that the only Church of England bishop who understands the full implications of domestic Sharia is also the only one properly alarmed by it. Nor is it surprising that he finds it impossible to exercise his office under the leadership of an Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) who, shamefully, wishes to afford greater state recognition to Sharia.How depressing, but the Muslim Council of Britain will be pleased, that's for sure.

I say, steady on Archbishop ! You can’t go round saying it has spread way beyond primitive desert tribalism lest you attract the exasperation of a certain evangelical atheist who haunts your site, and thinks he’s doing us all a favour by doing so. It would break the Inspector’s heart if you were accused of “ignorant and morally disgusting racism” by our very own Lenin, don’t you know !

One even suspects that he would not be averse at atheist attacks against religious people. They too are justifiable targets perhaps in his godless world, for the so called ‘harm’ he believes they do. He certainly enjoys attacking religion on this site, that’s for sure. Seems to be for the ‘greater good’ along with his idea of benevolent proto Marxism, if you can have such a thing, and we know you can’t.

Anyway, and now for today’s ‘creative solution’ if you will allow this man…

It simply isn’t good enough for the Muslim Council of Britain to condemn the attack and just leave it there. No, not at all. They must actively preach peace. Every service, or whatever it is they call their assemblies, must end in a call for worldwide peace from and by muslims. Now, they may not want to do this, so we offer an incentive. If they fail to adhere to this request, we simply close the mosque to public worship. We just can’t have it any other way, and we certainly can’t have organizations of hate active in the public arena right under our noses. This is ENGLAND you know, not some slum country in the baking sun, where these valued citizens originate from. And of course, one is in no doubt the two blighters that carried out this savage killing are no strangers to the inside of a mosque.

Perhaps we have a member of the MCB reviewing this site. His opinion on this initiative would be interesting…

The Inspector concurs with Carl Jacob’s desire to put the perpetrators to death, but is disgusted with the man ranting for a slow and painful death. Sir, you are not worthy of the description of being civilised if you truly believe that. Indeed, you are no better than the members of the races who carry out these inhuman acts.

The young negro holding the cleaver and his accomplice could be in prison for 50 years. What is the bloody point in that ? Man was not put onto this earth to be caged for anywhere like that length of time. Are we not insulting God by treating these men as a ‘guests’ of the penal system rather than sending them on their way for divine judgement ? Do we think God is against capital punishment for those of us who have fouled up so severely that they cannot be free to walk the streets again. Why we be thinking we might offend God by doing that, the very God that welcomes into his kingdom deceased child cancer victims with clean souls ?

A swift and humane death for these people is required to satisfy natural justice. Death by hanging in the traditional British manner, no less. Skilled English hangmen could despatch the condemned in a matter of several seconds. Just think of the millions of pounds that would save, as well as providing a TRUE deterrent to this kind of evil.

It's interesting that since the Muslims began before 911 there has been no calls for muslim organizations to promote peace and by all accounts they do not do so. It is about time we monitored their schools to ensure that they don't instruct young boys how to beat their wives etc. or how to sacrificially slit someone's throat. Also we should on a yearly basis have people going into muslim schools to inform all the girls there that if they do not want to get on the plane to go off to a foreign venue for an arranged marriage they just need to speak to the police.

Inspector: "Just think of the millions of pounds that would save, as well as providing a TRUE deterrent to this kind of evil."

Given that they waited around for the police to come and one of them ran towards an armed response unit, it seems unlikely that they were motivated by the sort of self-interest targetted by an alleged deterrent like that.

Danj0,the self interest centres round the notion that if they die why committing acts of barbarity they go straight to Heaven whereas normally they have to get a positive balance of good and evil in their lives. 51% gets them into Paradise. However Islam also teaches that 40 days after a child is conceived the Angel of God appears and decides at that stage if it is going to hell. It's a bit like what John Calvin and Martin Luther preached. How these two doctrine can be reconciled I do not know. Anyway if you die while indulging in barbarity there is no balancing to be done - you get straight to Paradise and your 72 virgins. In other words the supreme reward of Islam is a brothel.

Or course, it wouldn’t just be the active unit that would be hanged. Those who knew, conspired with, if you will, would be charged under the principle of common cause. All culpable, if you know your law. Hence, future atrocities would be avoided by the support staff turning Queens Evidence.

I think it was inevitable that something of this kind was going to happen. Any society that is too Liberal and chooses to abandon the concept of morality is going to end up with internal chaos.

This is "anything goes" Britain We impose our way of life down the barrel of a gun to other nations, while ignoring the mess in our own backyard.

How much better it would have been if the Government had debated ending the war in Afghanistan, controlling immigration, dealing with extremism, or even fixing the economy instead of prostituting itself on the irrelevance of gay marriage this week.

We need more, much more in fact, than Mr Cameron's vacuous WW2-style rhetoric. This isn't WW2. The enemy is inside, it is home grown, and yes it is there partly because of Britains own weakness and permissiveness.

Debate about the death penalty is a bit irrelevant. Every time I feel tempted to agree with the death penalty my head reverberates with the New Testament story of the woman about to be stoned for adultery.

Instead, a bit more pride in our country, behaving a bit less like the worlds doormat, interfering less in other nations, and we might not have got to this place at all

Does anyone remember how the left-wing media (including those like the BBC that like to think of themselves as representing the middle ground) vilified Melanie Phillips for her book "Londonistan" which was about how successive British governments had allowed Britain in general and London in particular to become a haven for Islamic extremism?

Does anyone remember how Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, admitted that the Labour Party deliberately encouraged mass immigration to Britain because they wanted "to rub the Right's noses in diversity"?

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviserhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Does anyone else wonder why the hell Tony Blair and other members of the last government have not been put on trial for treason for trying to change the make up of the British population, without any mandate from the electorate, for their own ends?

Does anyone remember how despicable Guardian journalists such as Madeleine Bunting tried to smear as racist anyone who tried to draw attention to the problem of men of Asian origin grooming white British girls and treating them as sex-slaves in this country?

Blame it on the Asians by Madeleine BuntingThe Guardian, 14 February 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/feb/14/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices?INTCMP=SRCH

We all know, don't we, how the police deliberately ignored the grooming problem because they did not want to appear racist and they knew that "demonstrating a commitment to anti-racism or multiculturalism" would enhance their careers?

Does anyone else wonder why no "British" Islamic terrorist has ever been charged with treason? If they are British then they are traitors to this country.

Does anyone in this country have any confidence at all that Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or anyone not regarded by the political class and their allies in the BBC and Guardian as a "swivel-eyed loon" has the slightest intention of doing anything remotely effective to tackle terrorism in this country?

We could do with the domestic equivalent of the Nuremberg trials for those politicians, policemen, civil servants etc. who have betrayed this country.

Someone said, perhaps in the context of Enoch Powell, that it is the fate of many conservative thinkers to be proven correct, decades after their well thought out and well presented views were derided by the left, the liberals and the fashionable. Does anyone remember who said those prophetic words ?

Shacklefree: "Danj0,the self interest centres round the notion that if they die why committing acts of barbarity they go straight to Heaven whereas normally they have to get a positive balance of good and evil in their lives."

Well, quite. So hanging is hardly going to be a deterrent. I expect even if we hanged these two, they'd view it as martyrdom. They've been messed up by a particularly vicious form of religious ideology.

What gets me is the justifications that were coming through yesterday- on one of the news channels some commentator was saying the reason is because of the 'radicalisation' of young muslims and it is all the fault of the British foreign policy towards 'muslim lands' or something.

So it's OK them to murder a man on the street because of a disagreement with British foreign policy? I cannot believe that this was even given a serious airing as a legitimate view point.

But then we shouldn't be surprised because in the topsy turvy type world we live in some people think that lobbing bombs, rockets and suicide bombers into Israeli cities, with the intent to kill civilians, is perfectly OK because Israel is the 'zionist occupier' which needs to be condemned, boycotted and according to Hamas and Hezbollah exterminated.

Thankfully this is England, where Inspector can say what he likes about his appreciation of the 'difference races'. It might be questionable or offensive, but we all have the right to offended. It is called liberal democracy. Better that than some Islamic theocracy with people being slaughtered in the street.

" ... this is England, where Inspector can say what he likes about his appreciation of the 'difference races' ... It is called liberal democracy. Better that than some Islamic theocracy with people being slaughtered in the street."

The United Kingdom, actually!

Yes, agreed, but one so wishes he'd stop claiming to hold Catholic beliefs ... check ... he doesn't claim this ... check ... it fact ... check ... he openly disagrees with Catholic teaching on a range of issues check ... he just throws in his religion from time to time when it suits.

In the Telegraph, Mehdi Hasan—the journalist best known for likening non-Muslims to cattle—proves that Islam really is the Religion of Peace. Regrettably, he is only able to do so by misquoting the Qur’an. From 5:32…

‘whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other wicked crimes, should be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind’

…he removes ‘except as a punishment for murder or other wicked crimes’, the phrase that, under the Qur’an’s eye-for-an-eye legislation, justifies revenge for the killing of Muslims by British troops.

"Anyway, and now for today’s ‘creative solution’ if you will allow this man…

It simply isn’t good enough for the Muslim Council of Britain to condemn the attack and just leave it there. No, not at all. They must actively preach peace."

A good start in creative thinking Inspector. Now, the more difficult bit! How will you encourage the Muslim Council to do this? And, how could they spread this message within the different Muslim communities and divisions?

RoyDoes anyone else wonder why the hell Tony Blair and other members of the last government have not been put on trial for treason for trying to change the make up of the British population, without any mandate from the electorate, for their own ends?

Utterly disgusting. My prayers and condolences to the family and friends of the murdered soldier.

As for the rage and even over the top suggestions here, well they are understandable under the impact of this fresh and revolting horror ...as they are ultimately futile in the current political clime. The creative and drastic proposals bandied about here are fairly standard response to a terror attack, but their intensity will drastically drop off with every hour and they will never be even discussed in government, much less implemented. Not yet, anyway.

What is happening to you in Britain is an empirically predictable and arguably unavoidable situation faced by other places...the Balkans, France, Russia, Africa, India, Thailand, Nepal, Filipines, Israel, etc... anywhere the Muslim numbers approach or pass 5 percent of the overall population. A paper I once read correlated Muslim percentages to frequency of terror and mayhem attacks... or "intercommunal violence" as liberals and culturally sensitive folks would have it. Such a hypothesis shocks and offends our sensibilities for we believe that generosity, democracy and tolerance will entice and tame any beast, alas its basic premise is yet to be falsified. The paper disappeared from the 'Net, but anyone who googles the Pew Centre map of Muslim populations by country will essentially get a map of terror incident frequencies... oops, I mean regrettable inter-religious, aka, inter-communal violence events.

If anyone can provide a counter argument, a falsification to that observation, even just a more optimistic angle on this, I'll be genuinely relieved as I prefer that everyone get along. And I so hate statistical determinism.

Vicarious retribution, as repeatedly promoted by you, may or may not be effective as a worldly remedy to acts of evil. But do you seriously believe it is Christian?

Yes. The first purpose of Law is to punish the criminal in the stead of the victim. That's why the state bears the sword. It is supposed to punish without mercy. Deterrence and protection are secondary purposes. The first purpose is to punish the guilty for what he has done. One of the moral weaknesses of the West is that it considers punishment to be synonymous with confinement. That is not sufficient. Punishment entails both deprivation and the intentional infliction of pain. We in the West find the later to be cruel and unusual. That attitude devalues the pain and suffering that has been inflicted upon the victims of the crime.

This case however is not just a crime. It is also political act. The perpetrator's self-confessed intent was to incite rebellion and mayhem and slaughter. The images in those videos are powerful, and presently they stand uncontradicted. They present an image of powerful men committing violent acts with impunity for a cause. There is a distinct subset of people who will see that video as a clarion call. That is the sense of immortality that the perpetrators were seeking after. That image must be replaced.

If these men are simply sent to prison, they win the exchange. The individual cost to the criminal is far less than the collective impact of his crime. If these men should be executed (10 years from now after appeals) in some clean and humane manner, they win the exchange. The individual cost to the criminal is far less than the collective impact of his crime. To change this dynamic, you have to erase the image of that video by replacing it with something else. And you do that by breaking the man. You show him weak, impotent, terrified, helpless, begging for mercy, pleading for his life and (most of all) afflicted with terrible suffering. The political nature of the act demands the severity of the punishment.

Otherwise, you are going to get another version of Roddy McCorley marching without fear to die a martyr's death. You will get a true heroic martyr instead of a wretched example of want happens to people who do these things. And it will happen again. Only next time it will be much worse.

If a religion or belief system promotes violence then it should be banned . Hiding behind the freedom of religion act has been the problem. The change can only come through the legal system. Catholics were forced to close down their Adoption Organisation because of their beliefs being contrary to the law so can anyone explain to me why the same does not apply to Muslims?

Carl, I see where you're going with this argument and while it may seem logical in isolation, the reality is that Western societies are not culturally, politically and institutionally ready to carry on as always and out of the blue bring in torture and executions. Give the emotions a few days to subside and you'll see how wild and utterly unrealistic your suggestion is.

My guess is that with the near certain increase in terror and Islamist violence in the UK, the inevitable solution will be to end the quaint and quixotic unarmed bobby silliness and to employ the Israeli method of spot checks in public areas, profiling, psychometrics, guards at malls and large venues and armed soldiers in pairs walking the streets. A vigilant citizenry, dedicated counter terror measures and deadly response times measured in seconds work very well. These may seem intrusive, a conscious policy of counter-balance by protecting basic rights through a libersl and independent judicial system can, as can be seen, work fairly well. However objectionable and humiliating, they are preferable to televised drawing and quartering in the Tower or rampaging pogroms by yobs, the latter which will be the inevitable response if nothing is done to provide a measure of effective security to a frustrated public.

Give the emotions a few days to subside and you'll see how wild and utterly unrealistic your suggestion is.

Yes, I know that. To be quite honest, I am pushing this argument to see if it will break. I'm not entirely convinced by it. I'm not entirely unconvinced. I am convinced the West as a whole is entirely too lenient in its punishments. I'm just not sure where the boundary should be. Understand however just how serious is this crime, and just how dangerous is this video. The way the West is currently constituted, the terrorist cannot lose in this exchange. And that infuriates me.

the reality is that Western societies are not culturally, politically and institutionally ready to carry on as always and out of the blue bring in torture and executions.

Maybe. Maybe not. Have you ever listened to people anticipate a child molester being confined in prison? They positively relish the idea that he will be beaten and forcibly sodomized and perhaps killed by fellow inmates. They can barely contain their salivation. In fact they want him to suffer. They simply want to wash their hands of the act. They want some distance between their desire and the punishments that result from that desire.

People fear prison not because they fear the state. they fear other inmates. That is not how prison should operate. The strong predator should not see prison as a place he can dominate. The weak prisoner should not be placed at the mercy of the strong. Both should fear the state. Only the state should be inflicting punishment. But that is not the current reality.

Well, I'm glad to see that you recognize how uncharacteristic your experimental argument is. You even shocked our Inspector, who's hardly a sqramish pantywaist.

On the subject of the pedophiles in prison, though, a salient difference is that people may be ok with prisoners savaging another convict, but I'm sure they will not accept the same from the authorities. Refer to your own Constitution on the subject of cruel and unusual punishments. I'm no constitutional expert, as your current president is alleged to be, but I suspect that the Founders saw a clear danger to the social, moral and political fabric of their new nation. Otherwise I agree with you that democracies have become too lenient. Heck, we've lost our already miniscule balls, begging the ladies' pardon for the earthy expression.

But that was necessary. If you don't present it authentically, you don't get an authentic response.

On the subject of the pedophiles in prison, though, a salient difference is that people may be ok with prisoners savaging another convict, but I'm sure they will not accept the same from the authorities.

Of course. But that is not a moral position. That is cowardly evasion. It says "We want you to suffer, but we don't want to be the agent of your suffering. We simply want to bask in the passive vicarious enjoyment of your suffering." It amounts to the appointment of a de facto state surrogate. I hate that. The state shouldn't consign people to a jungle of fang and tooth and claw because it doesn't have the courage to prevent it. Among other things, it means the strong do not fear prison the way they should.

Refer to your own Constitution

Well, I wonder how the definition of 'cruel and unusual' has changed. More to the point, I wonder how much this attitude is predicated upon prior moral capital that was built up over centuries. In a similar manner to the preconditions for limited gov't, I wonder if there are preconditions that make a more lenient penal system possible for a society. If so, when do you need to revert to a greater level of harshness?

In any case, I know that the West has no adequate response to a political crime like this. That makes us vulnerable. Be afraid of that circumstance. A radicalized fearful public is likely to allow (or even demand) changes far more significant changes than anything I have herein advocated.

Carl, first I'd like to note that it's only just now that I read up on Mrs Loyau-Kennett. Wow. Big brass ones.

You are right about the moral corruption behind the glee whenever a prisoner is killed or mistreated by fellow convicts. It's a moral and systemic failure, which damages our contract with authorities. In my case I carry this assessment over to capital punishment, which I see as an institutional admission of failure and an act of administrative savagery incongruous with the ideals of just governance; I oppose it unconditionally...a vestigal ethical appendage from my old liberal days perhaps.

But you do bring out very good points about levels of punishment, a "measure of just pain," as it were and again, I'm forced to ponder whether the fact that liberal democracies, or comparatively lenient systems are rare in the world and in history, not because people haven't thought of them, or because most people are overly primitive and harsh, but because liberal systems are stupendously expensive and quickly collapse when the gravy runs out. We grow up believing that justice is a natural or divine right, but it's not. It requires wealth and stability and a balancing act between too little and too much, something religion should help us with, but we can over- interpret that too. But I'm sleepy and veer off to the woolly philosophical, so before I get silly, let me bid you a good night.

Yes lets ignore the political problems and blame it purely on religion. I'm sure if Christians sat on oil rich lands they would turn the other cheek when the US and U.K illegally invade. Anything else would just be a violent reaction! God forbid they defend themselves. Now I know the woolich killers were not right in the head, they are twisted and 100% wrong to do what they did, but you cannot stop people from being angry and wanting revenge over the way this country has participated in the killings of so many more abroad. A lot Muslims. But its ok, as long as they're Muslims right? Coz they're the enenmy as the media would have you believe so that makes it ok to kill them and expect not to be attacked back in return. Use this manipulation to make your own religion sound more credible! Like a good Christian does. What a hypocrite you are.

Yes, it is to do with (a particular interpretation of) islam ...IT IS A RELIGION

In the same way that the historical mass murders of the "wrong sort of christians" (i.e. heretics) by other christians used to be the norm, & considerably more recently than the 622 years that islam is behind chirstianity.

I still don't see how hacking someone to death in broad daylight in a first world country is supposed to be justified by British foreign policy or the invasion of Iraq, what happened a decade go.

I would suggest if people think that caving in to the Jihadist demands will make Britain or the world better or safer, think again!

Let's look at the agenda of the Jihadists :

1. Conversion of the UK (and the non Muslim world) to Islam and Sharia law, by force if necessary.

2. The end of British/western involvement in the middle east

3. The destruction of Israel as a pre-condition of peace.

4. To do 1,2 and 3, by any means, mostly by acts of terror and war.

Now does anyone want 1 and the consequences of that ? Not I for one.

Number 2- all well and good, but the middle east is a strategic part of the world because of its production of oil. Europe is especially dependent on oil and gas of that region for energy, economy etc etc. It is therefore vital that some form of military presence is located in that region in order to secure the oil, should the region fall into chaos. It would be nice if the middle east was a giant version of the educated and friendly Scandinavian states, such as Norway, but it ain't.

Number 3- Britain and the west of incapable of producing this result. Neither should they, in my view. Unless they want to be part of a second shoah.

Phil, Africa is the unfortunate living laboratory where the failure of the modern secular system of government and jurisprudence is most obvious. But its unsustainability is evident as well in our well to do societies, where milions of middle income people can not obtain justice from ever-growing bureaucracies which generate more bogus justifications, laws, regulations, procedures and complexities to sustain themselves. The parallels between our state bureaucracies and terror establishments are uncanny.

When, not if, it collapses, we will be Africa and justice will come in tjeform of riots, lynching and tire neclaces. And it looks like there is nothing that can be done to thwart this fate.

Avi"The prospect of African economic development no longer attracts huge controversy. Most experts agree that Africa's prospects are bright. Even western journalists who not too long ago called Africa 'the hopeless continent' are now writing headlines like 'Africa Rising,'

Reports by the International Monetary Fund and the Economist Magazine indicate that Africa has surpassed Asia as the fastest growing continent. Africa is posting growth rates of 5 percent per annum, higher than most other rates for other continents."

Manfarang, that is good news, because the idle capacity potentials of this giant continent, which looks smaller only due to Greenwich centred Mercator projections, is truly stupendous.

Unfortunately, until the EU and the UN come apart, Africa can not access its huge energy reserves (evil CO2) or increase its food production due to international bans on GM crops (invisible poisons). Malaria has already decimated millions thanks to fraudulent environmental claims by eugenicists (evil DDT) and the fight against AIDS is bungled up by cleptocrats in fake nation all costumes who insist on self- administering the programs (dignity). I suspect the spike we're seeing is just droppings from the oil exploration by the multinationals.

One of the killers who beheaded and disemboweled a young soldier in the horrific Woolwich attack had listened to the preachings of a radical Muslim cleric banned from Britain over extremist activities, including alleged links to al-Qa’ida.

The cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed has been secretly filmed stating that decapitation of the enemies of Islam was permitted. Today, in comments met with outrage, he told The Independent that he could understand the feeling of rage that had motivated the attackers and that what they had done was justified under Islam.

Michael Adebolajo, a British-Muslim convert of Nigerian origin who gave a video interview with a meat cleaver in his bloodied hands while the body of 25-year-old Drummer Lee Rigby lay on the street behind him, declared that he was fighting for “Almighty Allah”.

Last night the second suspect was understood to be Michael Adebowale, 22, of Greenwich.

Islamic Cleric Bakri Muhammed, who now lives in Lebanon, told The Independent: “I saw the film and we could see that he [the suspect] was being very courageous.

“Under Islam this can be justified, he was not targeting civilians, he was taking on a military man in an operation. To people around here [in the Middle East] he is a hero for what he has done.”

Security officials insisted that there had been no evidence that either of the two men were planning an imminent attack. Nor was there any evidence, they say, that they were discussing beheading. They point out that there were plenty of references to beheading in Islamist websites.

In 2007, following the conviction of a group British Pakistanis who had plotted to kidnap and behead a British soldier, a secret recording emerged of Mr Bakri Muhammed saying: “When you meet [Westerners], slice their own necks. And when you make the blood spill all over, and the enemy becomes so tired, now start to take from them prisoners. Then free them or exchange them until the war is finished.

“Verily they remind the sunnah of removing the head of the enemy. They remind the sunnah of slaughtering the enemy. They remind the sunnah of how to strike the neck of the enemy. They removed the head of the enemy. Use the sword and remove the head of the enemy.”

Security officials insisted that there had been no evidence that either of the two men were planning an imminent attack. Nor was there any evidence, they say, that they were discussing beheading. They point out that there were plenty of references to beheading in Islamist websites.

In 2007, following the conviction of a group British Pakistanis who had plotted to kidnap and behead a British soldier, a secret recording emerged of Mr Bakri Muhammed saying: “When you meet [Westerners], slice their own necks. And when you make the blood spill all over, and the enemy becomes so tired, now start to take from them prisoners. Then free them or exchange them until the war is finished.

“Verily they remind the sunnah of removing the head of the enemy. They remind the sunnah of slaughtering the enemy. They remind the sunnah of how to strike the neck of the enemy. They removed the head of the enemy. Use the sword and remove the head of the enemy.”

Cleric Bakri Muhammed, who is Syrian-born, and has named one of his sons after Osama bin Laden, stated that he and his followers were not involved in violence while residing in the UK due to what had become known as the “covenant of security” under which Islamist organisations were allowed to carry out their activities but in this case obviously the covenant of security did not apply,” he said.

“Beheading is how criminals were executed under the laws by a Sharia court and decision by judges with criminals. On this occasion he was taking military action.”

Cleric Bakri Muhammed had set up the organization Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK, where he had claimed asylum in 1986, but split with them after doctrinal disagreements and set up the Al-Muhajiroun group which attracted hundreds of followers including Adebolajo. That Al-Muhajiroun group was also wound up but at least a dozen of its members are thought to have become or affiliated to suicide bombers.

Having heard the above about Cleric Bakri Muhammed equiping and encouraging muslim young men to behead the infidel

“When you meet [Westerners], slice their own necks. And when you make the blood spill all over, and the enemy becomes so tired, now start to take from them prisoners. Then free them or exchange them until the war is finished. They removed the head of the enemy."

Listen to what Muslim Tameena Hussain, Chairman of Maidenhead Conservative Future, writes on Conservative Home this morning. It is breathtaking in its lies and duplicity ...

"All Muslims ask for, is consistency from the media and from politicians. The definition of terrorism is: “The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes or to further religious ideologies”. In all of this, I think what the media forgets is that, no faith promotes hatred and violence. Yet time and time again, the media links an individual to a faith but no link between the individual and faith should be made, irrespective of what faith they claim to be acting in. Again I make the point that this was not an attack by, for or with the consent of Islam or Muslim, and that we wholeheartedly support our fellow citizens in fighting terrorism. I’m a Muslim who is in the public eye, but rest assured that Muslims across the UK work extremely hard to bring communities together, which is why an act like this will not divide us. If anything, it will bring us together and make us stronger." Tameena Hussain is the Chairman of Maidenhead Conservative Future

Sensible comments as ever. I think that the example of Gaza shows how, even if the so-called 'two state' solution was implemented the Arabs would never be happy. It wouldn't solve anything.

I never really get things with the Arab muslim world because for all the so-called 'solidarity' between Arab nations, they are all busily slaughtering each other and persecuting Christians.

The other big minority in the wider middle east, Jews, as we now were heartily expelled, assets and property seized and demonised by Arab states of all political hues -something which never comes to attention in the western liberal mindset, not sure why. Strange, strange.

Out of the goodness of their cuddly little hearts, no doubt. China is well known for random acts of selflessness and their deep respect for Black people. Haven't glanced at an atlas recently, bit isn't Africa an island just off the coast of China? I think it's the largest of the Spratley Islands....Feizhou.

China simply wants the mineral resources of Africa and doesn't give a jot about what governments they deal with there, even atrocious regimes like the one in Rhodesia* providing they get the coal, iron, diamond, oil etc etc that China wants -preferably at cheap rates. It is, as you note, no different to western 'imperialism'. Except perhaps the medicine, education, technology etc.

*a country which was under British rule the 'bread basket' of Southern Africa- now her people starve thanks to racist policies towards minority races, such as stealing farms and other properties by brute force.

Hi, Miss Hannah. Indeed, the dispossession of most of the Jews in the Muslim world, who had been there before Islam and in most places before Arabs (whose homeland is suggested by the name Arabia) is a subject that earns puzzled looks and the need to check phone messages among the progressive crowd. The rationale for the looting and expulsions was the creation of Israel... where most sought refuge, thus doubling Israel's population in a jiffy and sending rickety Arab economies in a tail spin. Arab logic.

Firstly I would like to say all religious or political fanatics, interpret material selectively and out of context to justify their rage and radical ideas. Charles Manson loved to quote the Bible didn't he? Is his thought too, a school in Christianity? The point is - just because a minority choose to commit grave acts of terror in the name of a religion, or ideology, or party, it does not mean the majority condone this. Authentic Muslim scholars who are respected and reputed nationally and internationally within the Muslim community have condemned these incidents as they violate not only the principles (furu') of the Shariah, but they mis-apply verse from the Qur'an out of their actual context and meaning.Suicide bombing, vigilantism, killing an innocent individual with no just cause as deemed by an authority (dawla) are all against Islamic Law according to the Shafi, Hanbali, Hanafi and Maliki schools (the four dominant schools of Islamic law).

The verse you quoted from the Qur'an DOES EXIST in the Qur'an yes, but those verses (2.190-4) referred to specific incidents of war that took place between the Medinan Muslims, and the Meccans who, constantly tried to destroy the Muslims, conspired against them and violated the peace treaty between themselves and the Muslims (Treaty of Hudaybiyyah). Muhammad even offered them a 4 month period of arbitration to solve the dispute, but they did not concord and instead wished to come out and attack the Muslims. It was very much a matter of self defence and preserving the infant Muslims, who had just moved to Medina to flee persecution in 622. The verses were revealed to Muhammad in 624.

What you have not considered are the other Ayahs, or verses present in the Qur'an which give an entirely different and contextual image of war and instead speak for peace: Do not kill the soul sanctified by God except for a Just cause (6.151) or he who has unjusty killed another it is as if he has slain the whole of humanity (5.32), if they show peace, God has opened no way for you over them (4:89) (showing amnesty).

Also, you yourself are just as guilty for taking the verse out of context and are quote mining. For example: 2:190-4 (which you did not quote fully quote) says:

but do not exceed the bounds (set by God), for surely God loves not those who exceed the bounds.

Which shows proportionalism (as in the Just war Theroy).

In this instance, the verse speak about just retaliation - attack those who attacked you in the same way, and it argues for proportionalism. It does not say 'attack them less so they kill you' and it does not say 'attack them irrespective of what they did to you' - it says be proportionate which is EQUAL to how they attacked you.

All these things point to the central issue - these verse speak about war, in a specific instance, authorised by God, to a legitimate Islamic state, i.e. Muhammad's Medinan state, against the Meccans who violated the peace treaty, attacked Muslims and constantly conspired to attack them.

The history of Humanity contains incidents of war, and has called it 'just war'.

Now I have explained this, I shall explain to you that just because one fanantic quotes this verse and says he represents Islam, I have shown to you how wrong he is - because of the fact that the entire Muslim corpus condemns this and shows how this does not represent the acts of Muslims.

As a muslim, there is no reason to apologise for this incident - just like the Pope or the Archbishop does not apologise for what's happening in Iraq.

But I will condemn it.

But your kind of context-less, tangential and facile quote-mining does no favours for anyone.

As a funny factoid (not so funny for the farmers), China corned the African market for... tomato paste. Entire regions throughout Africa which invested millions in tomato horticulture went tummy up. Grown and processed by the Chinese army and all sold abroad to flood markets, as Chinese apparently dislike tomato.

Clearly thus, his usage of the verse to justify his action are clearly out of context, out of authority and do not apply to his instance - according to the Qur'an, it was a specific command made to a specific instance.

If you want to get frisky. Let me start quoting passages from Isaiah, or Deuteronomy, or the Psalms - the ones about bashing baby's heads in (by the Rivers of Babylon) and say, imagine a Christian person tried to apply that verse to justify his act - would it paint the religion in a negative light just because one individual mis-applied the verses?

Stopped reading your thesis somewhere around Charles Manson, "John" Ali. Sounds real interesting and I promise to read it one day. No doubt it explains why a British soldier on leave was run over by a car, hacked to death with kitchen implements, disemboweled and beheaded and how this has nothing to do, whatsoever and in the slightest with Islam. It was a misunderstanding. A failure on our part to properly contextualize.

" there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion... They carried us away in captivity requiring of us a song... Now how shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?"

Is of course a cool song by one of my fav bands boney M. Not quite sure why anyone wouldn't like them...

But the point is that I haven't come across a Christian or a Jew that would use these holy books to murder a soldier of our defence forces (or anyone else for that matter) in broad daylight in a suburb of London, in vicious and brutal manner, in the name of Jesus, G-d or Juipter ...

It is always sad that few people realise that when making judgements on the 'occupied territories'. Indeed my wider family have never best pleased that they had their assets and property taken from them, stuff which took them centuries to build up was taken away from them at a whim of another's religion. But it was their loss for them to get rid of an intelligent and wealthy minority, as we came to Britain, Israel, America and other parts of the world, rebuilt & got on with things.

Avi is one of the best posters on this site ( along with other luminaries such as Carl Jacobs, Danjo, No Mouse, Peter D, Mr Belfast, Alert, Naomi King, Phil Roberts, Old Jim & when he's not been at the Mouse N' Wheel- 4 Pints of Ireland's finest and Cashew nuts- Mr Inspector).

Unlike me, Avi takes a while to warm to new posters. I am sure once you start discussing Nietzsche and Sartre and the history of art, you'll get on well.

...just because a minority choose to commit grave acts of terror in the name of a religion, or ideology, or party, it does not mean the majority condone this.

It's amazing how many people all over the world who call themselves Muslims can happily take the Koran as justification for all kinds of abominations yet people like John Ali do f*** all to put them straight. This garbage about 'not all Muslims are terrorists' is a smoke screen perpetuated to con host communities in to a state of inertia while the 'extremists' get on with the job of carrying out their objectives.

No other religion today espouses or practices violence as a means to achieve political aims. Islam is a headless fascist cult of aggressive expansionism that has been allowed to go unchallenged in the West. When it is not engaged in terrorising non-Muslims it is endlessly trying to obliterate the 'wrong kind' of Muslims.

Islam is a disease. It spreads like a cancer and like a cancer soon subsumes its host organism.

We in the West have given too much deference to these intruders just because they belong to a 'religion'. Christians and Jews seemingly ignore the fact that it was dreamed up by a 6th Century, perverted thieving murderer who plagiarised and made additions to their own holy writ, lest it draws attention to the similar actions and absurd beliefs that they cling to as their moral authority.

I haven't. In any case, I didn't say everyone Jewish is my friend; I said some of my friends have been Jewish. As in 'Alice in Wonderland': "I eat what I like," is not the same as "I like what I eat." (Mad Hatter's Tea Party, if you want the reference).

Incidentally, scrolling back through past threads I now note that Peter D. is still awaiting further elucidation on that growing tall issue. If he's forgotten, I'm sure he'd be delighted to have you remind him.

At the outset it seems important that the West, if at all possible, does not solely resort to Islamic methods to deal with militant Islam. Your proscription is Islamic rather than Christian. Enforcing lingering death is both morally and practically unacceptable.

For our own good and to bolster our sense of moral superiority (Why? Well, why not)we need to attempt to maintain the semblance of the rule of law and our long-held values. Western electorates will expect nothing less.

The police reaction to the Woolwich atrocity was illuminating. Both suspects were summarily shot, by a woman PC. The police reaction could therefore be termed para-military rather than standard police procedure. There is no criticism of the police action in these remarks, the shooting seems well judged. Shooting to kill would have denied the state an opportunity to interrogate the suspects, and a warning shot is always futile. Indeed, this communicant recalls advice given by an ageing copper, 'If you're ever in real trouble and you happened to have a gun, fire two shots. The second round is your warning shot'. But I digress.

The problem with taking prisoners and the lingering death policy that you recommend is that two can play at that game. Do we want Muslim groups taking hostages within Western nations and issuing you-tube snuff-videos? For some time now it has been apparent to all but the political elite that all Western nations with a Muslim minority are already in a state of low-level civil war with that Muslim section of the populace. This conflict seems likely to get much worse very quickly.

A cycle of retribution and counter-retribution now seems inevitable in the UK and the danger is that Muslim tactics will change. At present the Muslims are somewhat dispersed. It is not impossible that they will start to coalesce in such a way that they are able to create no-go zones. The French police already issue a list of Zones Sensible where they only travel in unit strength. The same situation may shortly emerge in the UK. The only good thing about the possibility of the Muslims actually taking and holding ground within the UK is that the political elite will start to recognise that an existential threat has emerged. Of course, a high-profile political assassination, typically of a politician who talks tough about Islam, would be a real game-changer. We have already seen political assassinations in Holland of those who oppose Islam. As a relatively small island, the UK is well placed to deal with a Muslim insurgency from a strictly military point of view. There's no long and porous border such as that threatening the US, and no Avi it’s not Canada, we're talking about the old narco-state of Mexico, whose people are demographically claiming the United States.

But all of the above is speculation around the symptoms of Islamism rather than dealing with the disease. There would appear to be only two satisfactory outcomes, either the Muslims convert to Christianity or anything else compatible and benign, or they leave. A future in which the Muslims continue to present a rising existential threat is simply not an option.

The manner of the Muslim departure is another topic. However, one notes that Israel has recently deported 60,000 Africans to, Africa.

Folks, I have just read a fascinating series of articles about David Cameron, the Conservative Party and Common Purpose a fraudulent charity which blew its cover when it tried to interfere with the Leveson Enquiry. The reason I mention it here is because David Cameron is apparently a "Common Purpose Leader" and this would appear to explain his bizarre recent policies (homosexual marriage for example) but more importantly his lying and abuse of power.

These are the characteristics of a graduate of Common Purpose, they tend to share the same characteristics.

1 Want powerPeople become Common Purpose members for career advancement and to be part of a secret, Masonic-like society for careerists who want what Common Purpose has to offer - access to the corridors of power. This is not the action of a selfless person. The Common Purpose idea of 'leading beyond authority' is particularly attractive to the corporate psychopath class of person who will see it a green light to go around their organisation and pick up power wherever they find it laying around. These people are not noted for their selflessness.

2 Lack of integrityBeing part of the Common Purpose network brings those in public service under pressure to do favours for other Common Purpose 'graduates'. The lack of integrity and probity of some Common Purpose police officers is particularly disturbing.

3 CorruptMany Common Purpose members corruptly abuse public funds.

4 SecretiveMany Common Purpose 'graduates' in public service deliberately hide their membership of Common Purpose. This leaves them open to accusations of dishonesty, corruption, favouritism and under-the-counter dealings. Common Purpose targets the grey areas where public and private bodies meet such as Local Strategic Partnerships. These are prime candidates for potential corruption and dishonesty.

They operate according to the Chatham House rules which effectively means that meetings are held in secret with no agenda, records or accountability.

5 UntrustworthyCommon Purpose 'graduates' are incapable of leading by example because those people who have found out what they are up to do not trust them at all.

I couldn't work out why everything I have been hearing on the BBC and coming out of politicians mouths about the Woolwich massacre were lies now I think I have some clues and it makes sense of the behaviours of the Tory Party which on the face of things make no rational sense.

This is what has so far been said about Common Purpose and the Leveson Enquiry.

"In relation to the Leveson Inquiry and Common Purpose, a number of UK national newspapers ran stories implying that Common Purpose had exerted improper influence over the Leveson Inquiry, in the days preceding publication of its report. On 16 November 2012 The Daily Mail claimed that "like some giant octopus, Common Purpose's tentacles appear to reach into every cranny of the inner sanctums of Westminster, Whitehall and academia. The following day The Sun reported on the story and quoted Conservative MP Philip Davies as saying "[t]he way [Common Purpose] has managed to get itself into the Establishment is quite extraordinary." On 25 November, The Daily Telegraph too published a comment piece on the Mail's original story, characterizing Common Purpose as "[a] secretive organisation [that] has been described as a political version of the Freemasons."

If you google Common Purpose you will find many links about this organisation and its tentacles of influence. A fascinating read.

Phil, correct, nothing of substance. However the pattern in the UK is increasingly that the British people dictate the political agenda to the political elite. We are seeing this with the Coalition government's response to unease about the EU. Policy is lead by backbench dissidents supported by non-parliamentary activists.

Certainly the Woolwich attack changes the moral equation, returning the initiative to the British people. Hopefully the British state will follow. There is no longer any need for inhibitions about firmly dealing with Muslim third worlders seeking a better life in the West.

How much has Dave Cameron and the Coalition government done to try and combat Islamist extremism? In 2010, Haras Rafiq, Director of CENTRI, an organisation that specialises in countering extremism, urged the Coallition Government to overturn the failed policy of using extremists to combat islamic violent extremists by paying them money. However little seems to have changed.

The Government practice of funding muslim extremist organisations had not substantially changed, and the civil service has, for example, solicited “fast-stream” recruits from FOSIS, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), an organisation which had hosted and continues to host extremist speakers - including, in the past, Anwar al-Awlaki and Azzam Tamimi, who have both, though in different ways, voiced support for suicide bombings. Azzam Tamimi, supports suicide bombing and Haitham al-Haddad and Anwar al-Awlaki notorious violence inciters. Yet Civil Service recruitment teams attended FOSIS’s annual careers fair to solicit applications for the “fast-stream”, the route for “future leaders” of Whitehall.

The Federation of Student Islamic Societies, FOSIS, has been condemned by Theresa May and Nick Clegg for its failure to “fully challenge terrorist and extremist ideology”. However less than a month ago in April 2013, Ministers were still attending events organised by the very same FOSIS when Baroness Warsi attended and spoke at an event FOSIS organised in the House of Lords.

FOSIS has hosted numerous islamic extremist and terrorist speakers at its annual conference and other events. Several convicted terrorists have been officers of university Islamic societies affiliated to FOSIS and have also attended its events.

Another body linked to the extremist sect Hizb ut-Tahrir -the public funding of which Mr Cameron condemned as long ago as 2009 - is still receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, to educate PRIMARY-age children in Hizb ut-Tahrir ideology. Two schools in London and Slough with connections to Hizb ut-Tahrir are still receiving six-figure sums from the taxpayer, despite Mr Cameron’s condemnation three years ago of a £113,000 subsidy as “completely unacceptable.”

Writing in a Hizb ut-Tahrir pamphlet, the schools’ head teacher and trustee, Farah Ahmed, attacked the National Curriculum for “push[ing] the idea of 'religious tolerance’”, said ENGLISH was “one of the most damaging subjects” a school can teach and criticised “attempts to integrate Muslim children into British society”.

Despite Mr Cameron’s pledge to stop bankrolling undesirable muslim organisations, accounts published in recent weeks reveal that many bodies closely linked to islamic extremism continued to enjoy very substantial public funding.

Beneficiaries of this State largess include the East London Mosque, paid at least £256,000 last year alone and the Osmani Trust, which received almost £600,000. The East London Mosque and the Osmani Trust are both controlled by the Islamic Forum of Europe, which works to change the “very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed … from ignorance to Islam” in a “global” Islamic state under Sharia law.The mosque has hosted numerous hate and terrorist preachers, including Anwar al-Awlaki.

Is there such a thing as a "non-violent islamic extremist" and should the State be funding them ?

The phenomenon emanating from the State has been to use the tactic of funding and promoting “non violent” islamic extremists to stop jihad.Well, guess what, this has not worked.

A couple of examples to highlight this point:

1 The Stockholm bomber, Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly attended a “non violent” extremist Mosque and it did not de-radicalise him. Whilst this institution condemns violence in the UK, it uses videos that support suicide bombing as a military tactic abroad and its imam has supported attacks on western troops in Afghanistan and formerly in Iraq. This extremist mosque, supported by public funding, is also part of a fringe ideological and theological Salafist elite that attack and vilify other minority groups and in recent years have been funded almost exclusively by the Home Office as the bulwark against “violent extremism”.

2 A comprehensive report by the Centre for Social Cohesion called Islamist Terrorism: The British Connections has identified that 68% of the individuals that have committed Islamist Related Offences have no direct link with proscribed organisations but all of these people have been exposed to so called “non violent” Islamist Properganda inspired organisations at some stage in their lives eg. Islamic Societies in Universities (many of these killers have held senior positions).

Financially supporting non-violent extreme Islamist institutions clearly is not a cure for anything, rather it incubates the disease.

No wonder we have that muslim idiot (at best) Tameena Hussain, Chairman of Maidenhead Conservative Future saying "The Woolwich horror was not, repeat not, caused by Islam" is unsustainable but we can see now why she would say it. Who would want this State funded gravy train to stop ?

This is Haras Rafiq, a British born muslim and Director of CENTRI, an organisation that specialises in countering islamic extremism, view of where we are now with islam in Britian.

In the wake of arab spring and the rise of the Tunisian and Egypt dissent against oppressive, totalitarian regimes, Prime Minister Cameron has come out fighting against one of our own oppressive totalitarian movement in the UK – the Islamists. He is right in his analysis that the only way to tackle the growing rise of Islamist inspired terrorism is to tackle the growing phenomenon that is at the root of the problem - Islamism which has to an extent been sponsored by the State.

The creation and sponsoring of faith based identity politics, often from the very top, has allowed muslim clerics to exploit an over-exaggerated form of multiculturalism that has left predominantly Muslim immigrant communities without any resilience to isolation, confusion around identity, segregation, intolerance, hate, victim mentality and a focus on islamic affairs abroad. By allowing and often promoting this with its funding of 'non-violent' muslim extremist organisations, the State has played its part in these “foreign” communities still living in Britain in isolation and segregation.

Furthermore, funding the growth of these infidel hatred ideas - initially out of compassion by the Government and now subsequently as these things have gone wrong - has helped these ideas to ferment and build capacity. The desire by those in authority to be seen to be doing something, often in misplaced “vote grabbing” by appearing on platforms with people that formulate the ideas of muslim hate, gave these islamic extremists exactly the political legitimacy that they need to sell back to their community.

Haras Rafiq at least is one who has recognised the true nature of what happened on Thursday afternoon in Woolwich. This is what he says,

"It is clear that the horrific murder of a solider yesterday in Woolwich was an Islamist-inspired terror attack. A terrorist is defined by MI5 as "someone who uses or threatens action designed to influence the government...for the purposes of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause." The reports clearly suggest that the terrorists made political statements after the murder - which was corroborated by eyewitness reports. In the words of one onlooker: “they didn't run off. They just stood there as if they were waiting for the police.”"

bluedog: "The police reaction to the Woolwich atrocity was illuminating. Both suspects were summarily shot, by a woman PC. The police reaction could therefore be termed para-military rather than standard police procedure."

Have you seen the footage? They were shot just in the nick of time and it was reported beforehand that a gun was involved so that would have been at the forefront of their minds.

I've heard people saying they found the killer's words strange: why "your government" and his country, if he was British-born. But it's explicable in multicutural terms.

Multiculturalism may have encouraged him not to think of himself as British. He may have found an identity, instead, in the global Ummah. In that case, Afghanistan becomes his land, rather than the one he actually lives in. His co-religionists are killed by foreign (British) troops. He does his bit to fight back against the British Army.

Unless remaining European multiculturalists are hard-line Marxists who really want to bring down the existing social orderr and usher in the Communist paradise, then Europe needs to do some serious thinking about identity.

This, the Swedish riot, Scotland within the UK, the UK within the EU, the loss of national identities in a European superstate: these issues are all related.

That painting by Guuguin - 'Where do we come from? What are We? Where are we going? - comes to mind.

It only takes' Political Correctness' to allow evil to not only survive but to flourish and to destroy the very foundations of our Society.

'There is a way that seems right but will lead to destruction'.Political Correctness may seem right and' a good idea' to some but it has been turned into a (deadly) weapon and used against us to cover up and to even condone all sorts of evil.Man is now afraid to call evil as such and this is all it take to cause evil to triumph.

I do not presume to say, by the way, that Europe's problems are easily resolved.

There are Britons living in France who would rather be subject to British inheritance laws than French ones. They would rather import their supplies in containers from Tesco (including Tesco French wine) than shop in a French supermarket. These things are tricky.

ExplorerI appreciate and accept the intellectual limits and capabilities of our dear Inspector. One wouldn't expect an answer from him to the question posed as it demands an exercise in more exacting'creative problem solving'.

Mr DanJO @ 0923, clearly I didn't see the relevant footage. However, as we all know, there was a time within living memory when British society was so homogenous and cohesive that the police could do their work unarmed. No longer. We can only mourn that loss of security, and curse the Progressives who demonised critics of post-war immigration policy.

Enoch Powell sounded alarmist and extreme in 1968, but today his remarks seem to be a mildly prescient underestimation of the problem.

The manner of the Muslim departure is another topic. However, one notes that Israel has recently deported 60,000 Africans to, Africa.

Do you have a link to support this contention? I found many stories from about a year ago saying the Israelis wanted to deport 60,000 refugees. I couldn't find any stories saying they had actually done so.

It can be done. It should be done.

How can it be done?

In the first place, you will be deporting people who manifestly will not want to leave. They aren't going to wait around for a social worker to show up with an itinerary and a bunch of plane tickets. If you are worried about the existence of an alienated and angry population, I can't think of a better way to produce it. To make them leave, you would have to control them. That means arrest and long-term detention. You would have to construct a huge infrastructure to house these people and feed them.

Second, Great Britain is an island. There are only a few ways to get off the island. Those are all natural choke points. You can use ships, planes, and the Chunnel. There are limited spaces available. You are talking about moving between 2-3 million people. How many people can you reasonably move in one day using these methods? If you could move 1000 people a day (which seems outrageously large to me) you would be moving people for over eight years.

Third, there has to be a receiving country. You can't just put these people on a boat for Pakistan. The destination countries have to accept them. You seem to think they will be welcomed with open arms. They won't. They would produce massive social and economic dislocation. Pakistan cannot absorb 1000 new people per day. There isn't any Muslim country that can absorb these numbers. The problem doesn't stop when the Muslims leave British territorial waters. It is just beginning. Those b oats are going to be turned away and sent back to the UK. The planes will be refused landing rights. You can't just push 3 million people out the door and make them someone else's problem.

There is a reason the Germans did what they did. They figured out that some solutions were simply not efficient or feasible. You are suggesting an unfeasible plan. Even if you could control Muslims in the UK in order to deport them, you will have no place to send them. And you would have to employ a considerable amount of force to control them - including deadly force.

This whole idea is a non-starter. And I haven't even addressed the morality of it. Nor the inconvenient fact of British citizenship of prospective deportees. You simply can't get there from here.

Enforcing lingering death is both morally and practically unacceptable.

This I don't accept. The punishment should fit the crime. There are crimes where prolonged suffering is absolutely just. Certain murderers for example should be made to experience the suffering inflicted on their victims.

we need to attempt to maintain the semblance of the rule of law and our long-held values.

The problem is that you aren't going to address this problem with search warrants and rules of evidence. If you try, you will experience a level of violence as people repeat the event and with increasing ferocity. They don't fear your courts. They don't fear your prisons. How do you make them fear? I can think of alternate methods. You could punish not just the criminal but the criminal's family. You could identify and kill terrorists outside of the court system. You could take hostages from the community. Do you want to go there? Those kinds of solutions won't be restricted to Muslims. Ultimately the only safe solution is to create a loyal Muslim population. That means you have to severely punish with one hand and seek out allies with the other.

The police reaction could therefore be termed para-military

No, this is wrong. The police are justified in using deadly force. There was nothing paramilitary about this event.

The problem with taking prisoners and the lingering death policy that you recommend is that two can play at that game.

Yes, that's correct. But there are two things to consider. One, you don't determine a strategy based on fear of what your opponent might do. Two, I expect that the gov't can play the game much better than the terrorists. The point is to instill fear of the gov't. Right now, they don't fear the gov't. Even so, this is a good argument. It can easily spin out of control and result in exactly the outcome that should most be feared - extra-judicial killing.

Although if this keeps up, I doubt that outcome can be avoided. When people are afraid on the street, the gov't is going to act. And the limits on those actions will be inversely proportional to the fear.

Carl @ 0209, regarding my claim on Israeli deportations, I cannot at present reference it for you but it is written, I have read it and will try to substantiate.

You ask ‘How can it be done?’

Through salami tactics, meaning a raft of measures that progressively make life intolerable for the target demographic, not just in the UK but in Europe as well as in other western nations including your own. Woops, your President is named Hussein, so maybe just not yet in USA.

An important first step would be to apply an absolute ban on further immigration from proscribed Muslim nations, so that family reunions, the importation of brides and other shadow immigration techniques are ended.

At present the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are massive financiers of religious, cultural and societal support in general for Muslim communities in the West, UK included. This deliberate policy of social subversion is unacceptable. Coordinated blocking of this kind of support would be important in ending the aggressive proliferation of mosques, madrassars and Muslim education for Muslims in the West. Few Western Muslim communities are in themselves particularly wealthy and their tangible display of power is almost certainly far greater than domestic resources can provide. The rationale for this cultural and religious clamp down? Lack of reciprocity in Saudi Arabia where no Christian churches are permitted. Blame too the persecution of Christians across the Middle East in Turkey, Iran and Egypt to name a few. Christian churches are now allowed in some Gulf jurisdictions on condition that there are no outward manifestations of Christianity, such as a cross on a steeple.

Introduce compulsory lessons in Christian belief at all schools so that remaining Muslims are better able to understand their host community.

End state sponsored translation services.

Western Muslim communities tend to be highly dependent on state welfare. Raise the bar and make it even harder for immigrants of any stripe to benefit. Immigrants who fail to find employment within six months, out they go on a ticket home. Cheaper for the state to buy the ticket than to pay the benefits.

Until 2014, the UK has a base in Helmand province Afghanistan. Backloading Muslim criminals on empty C17s heading to Camp Bastion has its appeal. Loosely seated at say, 500 souls per flight, shifting 1000 per day is quite easy! With a cup of tea on landing and enough money for a bus-ticket to Karachi, all debts are paid.

British citizens who visit certain proscribed countries for potential terrorist training or to fight for the ancestral tribe in some war, ie Syria, lose their citizenship having implicitly declared themselves to be combatants for a foreign power.

Raise the bar on naturalisation so that recent immigrants wait say, ten years before naturalisation.

Severely limit voting rights so that only British citizens with a UK paternal grandfather can vote. Thus Muslim communities are disenfranchised and political opportunists have no incentive to represent their interests in the Parliament.

Political leadership is essential. It needs to be clearly articulated that multiculturalism is a gift of the host nation and that as the policy is deemed to have failed, the host reserves the right to withdraw multicultural privileges and will do so forthwith.

In a Western democracy it is extremely hard to eliminate a discrete demographic, I take your point. A mass round-up and deportation is not feasible, but pressure to encourage self-deportation can and should be applied in the first instance as a matter of policy.

Discrimatory? Of course, unashamedly so. But how will the country look in fifty years time if the past fifty years has yielded such catastrophic social outcomes.

You say, ‘Ultimately the only safe solution is to create a loyal Muslim population. That means you have to severely punish with one hand and seek out allies with the other’. Indeed, and as you infer, there need to be incentives to loyalty, see above for the stick. They’ve enjoyed the carrots for long enough.

Your wider point, ‘When people are afraid on the street, the gov't is going to act. And the limits on those actions will be inversely proportional to the fear.’ Absolutely correct. Europe contains all the ingredients for another holocaust – economic weakness, high unemployment, an easily identifiable minority, it’s dejavu all over again. If you subscribe to Stratfor you should read George Friedman’s piece on Spain. Look at the riots in Sweden too, it's going to be a very interesting summer.

bluedog"However, as we all know, there was a time within living memory when British society was so homogenous and cohesive that the police could do their work unarmed. No longer. We can only mourn that loss of security, and curse the Progressives who demonised critics of post-war immigration policy.

Enoch Powell sounded alarmist and extreme in 1968, but today his remarks seem to be a mildly prescient underestimation of the problem."

I remember seeing armed British policeman years ago- the RUC.I remember someone telling The MP for South Down that he would have to import a few blacks then he could call for them to be deported

A loyal Muslim population would be the ideal, if the religion would allow it.

I'm no expert on this matter, and speak subject to correction, but it seems to me that Mohammed's blueprint for society was/is a Muslim-controlled theocracy. (I don't know to what extent subsequent Islamic thought has modified this).

He didn't lay down the role for a Muslim minority within a liberal democracy, because he would not have acknowledged this as a long-term possibility.

Give the Islamists their due; they are honest enough to state clearly that Islam is incompatible with democracy.

Those "moderate" Muslims whom Cameron has faith in demonstrate how well integrated they have become into the self-deluding culture of progressive liberalism.Either that, or they are practising the deceit that Islam advocates in dealings with infidels.

On the subject of naturalization, my parents, siblings and I applied for and received citizenship after 5 years in country. Today, the waiting period is 3 years. We were able to vote and did vote, that same year. We voted for the Liberal government, the same one which shortened the waiting period and frightened immigrants out of their wits against the Conservatives, who as some activists in the immigrant communities ptactically implied, would have stuffed us into cattle cars and ships holds to send us back, to communist Eastern Europe for many of us.

I can confirm that neither 3 years, nor 5 years are sufficient to acculturate a newcomer to his new home. And we came from a middle class, educated and professional backgrounds from European countries and with basic, but functional levels of English. Ten years is the minimum for an adult to learn enough of the language and to clue in to the culture and politics around him... assuming he cares and tries. At least when I appeared before an immigration judge, we had to answer some pretty tough questions on Canadian history and politics, verbally and in writing...all in English. We also swore allegiance to the Crown... putting me in the comical situation of having to defend our Monarchy against republican-minded liberal Anglos here, whose ancestors go back to Loyalist pre-Confederation days.

I owe my life in Canada to liberal refugee and immigration policies, and I'm, I guess, bound to support such on principle. Yet, when I look at our current demographics and sobering projections, when I lock the doors as we drive through our newly emerging no-go zone ethnic enclaves, I can't help a few nagging doubts....

"The Spanish gave Muslims ( and Jews) a choice after 1492; convert or leave. "

Kiss my Jewish ass if you think the actions of the Spanish Empire against (mostly Rich merchant) Sephardi Jews was in any way reasonable or right; convert or we'll take your wealth, property and then kick you out of a country you have lived in for hundreds of years.. good, good policy, following 15th century policy in the 21st century!

There is of course nothing like the Spanish inquisition and a good auto de fe !

Bring it back! Along with the rack, and other such horrors.

Up yours, basically !

Bluedog- you refer to asylum seekers, not citizens or subjects of a country, who were uprooted, with wealth looted because of the base hatred of Jews,that Spain had towards its wealthy merchant Jewish population circa 1490s ...

Calm down Hannah. The muslims were invaders of Spain. Hardly surprising when they were thrown out, other alien influences were asked to leave too, unless they converted. If Islam today is anything like Islam in Spain then who could blame them. You must understand that Judaism is also an alien influence in the West, though of course, you will proudly hold up the anti-Semitic card on reading this...

I was framing the argument, in way,Inspector as a 'Roman Catholic' could understand. Personally I couldn't give a damn if Peter was the first Pope or not. But the New Testament- Holy writ for Inspector, does say, without a doubt, that Peter was (along with the other disciples) Jewish... but this to Mr Inspector is an 'alien' concept to the 'west'....

Trying to join the dots myself about this argument, but I just don't get it...

Christianity is similarly incompatible with a system that pretends to be neutral on morality and then institutionalises, promotes and defends anti-Christian policies. I'm thinking abortion, divorce and homosexuality.

The difference being that Islamists are driven to violently oppose such secular modernism and decadence, whilst Christians passively accept it - many of our churches actually promote and defend such sin as acceptable.

Carl: "Fish N' Chips are a Jewish invention." (Miss Hanna). Yeah, but ... this has to be balanced against the introduction of that 'Salted Herring on a cracker' stuff. That's a heavy burden to overcome.

There you go again, Carl, trashing the Silver of the Seas, the Noble Herring. More than splitting proto-Indoeuropean into mutually incomprehensible gaggle of tongues, the Alps deprived the southern part of the European peninsula of the blessing that was the salted North Sea herring, the staple source of animal proteins your flax and fur clad Nordic ancestors flourished on. I am but a late connoisseur, being of the Southerly folk. In your case, the salted herring is woven into the crevices of the helix tangle of your DNA, Carl. Face your past and embrace your heritage.

Hi, Miss Hannah, I'm not putting myself down; it does usually take an adult to learn about ten years to learn English and acculturation can take longer... if it happens. In my case it was easier as I was thirteen when we arrived here, had some English classes in school and was fluent in German. And believe me, German was a walk in the park compared to English. I was also in the public school system and all my friends were so more practical less equal mix of native born Anglo Canadians, third or fourth generation Jews or English-speaking Korean, Italian and Portuguese immigrants. I also loved the English language before I knew it, as I read its classics in good Czech and German translations which somehow managed to convey its unique "flavour."

As for the Spanish, they were indeed assholish primitives, beneath even the already decadent and fanatical Moors they somehow managed to turf out and inferior to the Sephardi Jews they looted and tried to convert to their superstitious and vicious version of Christianity. The English should institute weekly thanksgiving services to the Almighty for crashing their Armada and saving Britain from certain cultural extinction...an Extramadura of the North. Spain's subsequent decline into torpor and stupidity was well deserved. However, I do think Peter North's comment was descriptive, rather then prescriptive. A note that given a sufficient push-back, Islam folds like a cheap deck chair and disappears from the scene practically overnight. A similar process occurred in the once Ottoman Balkans. Well, the Balkans are holding, but Spain might once again become Al Andalus, the way things are going for it.

Hannah @ 23.27 said, 'Bluedog- you refer to asylum seekers, not citizens or subjects of a country, who were uprooted, with wealth looted because of the base hatred of Jews,that Spain had towards its wealthy merchant Jewish population circa 1490s ... '

Can't see how that comment relates to any post of mine. Did you mean to address Micheal North @ 0806?

OK, you are stating fact as you see it. What I do not understand is your take on Judaism being 'alien' to the west. I don't see that really, given its influences on the Christian religion (as stated above).

The first part of that post was addressed to Michael North and the second bit to you. In fact, I was actually 'nodding' in your direction.

I think I was trying to say that there is a difference between asylum seekers and citizens/subjects/long term residents in a country. As an asylum seeker you are trying to escape death and torture in your home country and are therefore a welcome guest in the country that takes you in.

In respect of the UN and the liberal media, they clearly don't see that distinction. However, all of the 'great powers' at the UN have at one time or other been instigators of property seizure or forced relocations- some worse than others, some offering appropriate financial restitution.

The most recent example of Britain was the relocation of the residents of the British Indian Ocean territory, so that America could build a military base there.

And of course in Britain if the state wants to build a motorway through your house, it can do so via a compulsory purchase order (a kind of forced relocation no?).

You say, 'As an asylum seeker you are trying to escape death and torture in your home country and are therefore a welcome guest in the country that takes you in.'

There's a few questionable assumptions there, IMHO. When the UNHCR was set up there were indeed large numbers of refugees from the aftermath of World War 2, and then subsequently as the European empires were dissolved by order of the US. There were legitimate fears of Soviet infiltration into many independence movements and the concern was that many decolonised lands would fall into the Soviet orbit. It's hard to believe now, but the USSR was a highly credible threat to the West. Most de-colonisation was completed fifty years ago yet still there are certain lands whose principle export is surplus people in the form of asylum seekers. The majority of these asylum seekers are Muslims, which tells us a great deal about the systemic failure of Muslim societies.

The question therefore arises, given the performance of the Muslims already accepted by the West, how many more of these 'asylum seekers' should the West take? Two things are becoming abundantly clear. Firstly most 'asylum seekers' today are actually economic migrants looking for a better standard of living. The second point relates to the propensity of Western populations to accept even more of these unassimilable aliens. At present, the view with regard to point two would have to be zero, particularly in the UK.

Consequently it is time to wind up the UNHCR which simply acts as a resettlement agency for people claiming victim status, prinicipally from the Muslim world. It is not obvious to this communicant why we should continue to save these people from themselves at huge cost and to our own considerable disadvantage.

Hannah. One sees Judaism in the middle ages as akin to todays homosexuality. Of society, but distinctly separate. And that at a time when Christianity was everything, rather like Islam still is today for those who belong to it. Can’t do you any better than that...

Well it has taken me 26 years to learn English and I'm still learning (lol!).

And in any case granted Michael North might have been fact telling, rather than point making, but to me Spain's expulsion of Jews backfired as they lost a lot of their merchants, traders and other intelligent people,who could have helped industrialise Spain in the long run, as happened when Jews came to England and Holland,rather than using Aztec gold to prop up the vast far flung Habsburg Empire...

That is part of the problem in Israel, the asylum seekers are mostly Muslims from Africa. Ironic given that Islamic Jihadists want to do all they can to destroy the Jewish state, yet their own co-religionists flee to Israel,as it is a rich and civilised country, although this is no different to Arab-Israelis preferring to be Israel rather than Palastinian citizens.

As you say there is a big element of economic migrant rather than fleeing due to persecution.

My reference to the expulsion of the Muslims and Jews from 15th century Spain was making the point that "convert or go" as a policy presupposes a coherent body of belief to convert to, something that Britain no longer possesses.

Whether I am a gentleman is something I leave to be decided by those who know me. I have certainly never publicly invited a stranger to kiss my arse. (spellcheck)

Have you ever thought you might be more at home commenting on YouTube?

The true honest practicing Muslims were all absolutely shocked and remorseful about what happened in Boston and Woolwich. This is a huge tragedy and a loss for all as humanitarians. This is so sad. Muslim community unconditionally condemns and repudiates the bombings that took place in Boston and brutal killing of a British soldier. We share the pain of fellow Americans and Brits and express our sincere condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed or injured in this vicious attack. The killing of innocents can never be justified. And, it is our hope that the perpetrator(s) of this horrible act soon be apprehended and brought to justice. There is about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and how many commit atrocities like this? And last time I checked the Aurora shooter's and the Sandy Hook shooter's religious beliefs were not publicized and connected to their acts. Religion is only an important factor when its not Christian.

It seems the victim was a soldier. Does that make any difference? It seems the two assassins did not try to escape, and the police when the arrived shot them both. So the perpetrators were both prosecuted to the full extent lawlessly. I go only by what has been reported on the TV news, but summary justice has no place in civilized society whoever does it and whether by machete or by drones. Two wrongs do not make a right. We are not the USA. Criminals must be brought to trial, not arbitrarily murdered.

Terrorism and sexual grooming is nothing to do with Masajid, Imams and Muslim schools. Those Muslim youths who have been involved in terrorism and sexual grooming are the product of western education system which makes a man stupid, selfish and corrupt. They find themselves cut off from their cultural heritage, literature and poetry. They suffer from identity crises and I blame British schooling. Masajid, Imams, Muslim schools and Madrassas are not teaching hatred against non-Muslims. They teach Muslim children that homosexuality is a sin. This does not mean that they are teaching hatred.

Why is the NATO merrily slaughtering thousands of innocent people and children every week with these drones and not called to heel? Why is the mass scale of these daily atrocities and carnage never reported and just callously written off as collateral damage? This not a war on terrorism at all, and its more than blatant bullying. This actually IS terrorism. And the worst of it is that our government despite all the death and destruction, are happy to stain their hands with the blood of collateral damage too. Its all so horribly wrong!And this is what gives fuel to terrorists and the real reason they hate the west. Thousands of innocent children and women killed by these.

The IRA was a TERRORIST organization who bombed schools full of children, massacred innocents and put bombs in busy London subway stations ...oh, and thy were all "devout" Roman Catholics .....how many Catholics were blamed for this and generalized as terrorists? ..I'm just saying. Iftikhar AhmadLondon School of Islamics Trusthttp://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

IftikharA. Look, old chap. We just can’t co-exist with you. Nobody can, and look all over the world where there is Islam. It’s the same. No point even trying, now is there ? By the way, the IRA did NOT bomb ‘schools full of children’. You’re probably thinking of the school in Russia where a gang went in and murdered the little ones with guns. Muslims, I recall...

Well, the solution is in their own hands, reconnect with all that is holy, just and true by leaving the land of the kuffar and returning to Dar al Islam, ASAP. Don't waste a minute in seeking to escape us infidels and our apostasy for your own sakes.

And 'They suffer from identity crises and I blame British schooling.' Of course you do. Victimhood is so much more satisfying than accepting responsibility for your own actions. But wait, you can't do that because you lead lives in submission to the will of allah.

Once again, the solution is obvious, leave Britain and return to the earthly paradise of Dar al Islam, be it in Karachi or Mogadishu.

Iftikar, The Woolwich butcher quoted Chapter 9 of the Koran to justify what he did. He didn't try to escape because he believed in what he was doing and that is what is wrong with Islam, it turns decent people into killers. The reason of course that they do the killing is because they are assured that if they die during Jihad all their sins are wiped out and they go straight to Paradise. Now killing people so that you can get your reward sounds pretty selfish to me. Of course some Western governments claim that fighting wars abroad makes it safe at home. The stupidity of that is perfectly obvious to anyone and is what we might expect from politicians but Christianity states clearly that you cannot perform an evil act to achieve a good end i.e. the end cannot justify the means. Islam however teachers quite explicitly that you can as when Mohammed said that warfare is grievous but opposing the "Way" is more grievous and so he justified killing in the month of Ramadan which had previously been a time of truce in pre-Islamic times. Even today Ramadan is more violent than any other month as devout Muslims attempt to curry favour with Allah by violence. What therefore does Islam tell us about God? The other question is what you are going to say on the day of judgement when God ask you why you promoted a religion which present Almighty God as as a vindictive tyrant whose ultimate reward for his followers is a brothel.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)